[deleted]

I’m interested in the book and I know it’s popular amount non-historians, but I would like to know if professional’s think it’s a credible source.

Imagine back in the 1500s or 1600s you are part of an indigenous tribe somewhere along the coast of the US or Canada. Europeans come for the first few times. They're dressed differently and look much different. How did the natives react and why didn't they kill these strange invaders?

What were the casualties in both sides? Were there bunkers on the ridge, if so how many? Did the Americans have bazookas on the ridge? Was there any part of battle of the Maeda Escarpment with tanks involved? How many Americans went up on the ridge? How many Japanese were defending the ridge? How many Japanese soldiers bayonet charged the American soft the ridge?

Hi all,

I am a grad student in history writing up my dissertation at the moment. Being generally rather insecure about my writing, I have recently noted a problem that makes me particular anxious.

At times, after writing up a chapter, I will come across a book or article that states a similar historical fact/analysis that I also mention/discuss in my chapter using my own primary sources. I am explicitly not talking here about the main argument that book or article makes. If there is an overlap in terms of our main arguments, I then would normally of course add an additional sentence/footnote in my chapter. What I am rather talking about are basic statements about historical events/facts that are made in other scholarship, often just in passing. In those cases, I then get very anxious about whether or not I should add a footnote saying: "on this, also see" or something similar or whether I should just leave it.

The Turiabian (7.9.3) states:

Readers don't expect you to find every distant source for every familiar idea, but they do expect you to cite the source for an idea when (1) the idea is associated with a specific person and (2) it's new enough not to be part of a field's common

It also notes that "cite a source for an idea not your own whenever an informed reader might think that you're implying that it is your own. Though that seems black and white, it has a big gray area in the middle."

For me, the first quote from the Turabian does set quite a high bar for citation and most of the other scholarship that gets me anxious would not fall under this category. At the same time, given that there is this "big gray area," I often still find it difficult to decide.

Just recently, I came across a non-English language work that has one sentence that broadly states something that I also discuss in one of my chapters. The author actually just seems to state it as a matter of fact, as she does not provide any sources for the assertions. This could indicate that she either did sloppy work or, more likely, thinks this is a sentence that is common knowledge and needs no sourcing. That would suggest that I also do not need to add a citation to her. However, it still makes me anxious as there is no iron-clad rule about this and I am afraid that someone might accuse me of not acknowledging the scholarship of others.

I realize that some might just suggest to always just cite in case of doubt. But not only do I think that I already cite more than most of my colleagues and citing even more often will just clutter up my footnotes, but I also think that once I need to revise the dissertation for publication, presses might not be too happy with such long footnotes. Then again, if I do not cite I am always afraid that someone might accuse me of not citing this or that scholar.

I also do understand that this all is just a matter of experience and that I will get more confident about these judgements as time goes by. Moreover, my adviser so far seems to be happy with how much I cite. However, atm I find myself so anxious about this that I am not enjoying reading the work of others as much as before, as there is always the fear to come across a sentence on a historical event here or there that might be similar to something I discuss in my writing, as that then leads to anxiety as to how to deal with it again. So I am wondering how other historians deal with this problem and what I could possibly do about it.

okay i am sorry if it comes to you as dumb question also sorry for bad English. i think i am a history noob.

i'm an Indian and from what i know reading world history and my own country's history i have few questions

(perhaps because i might have thought of independence as Natives vs. Foreigners.)

1.what i want to ask you guys is that British/other Europeans were living in 13 colonies right ? i mean they wiped out natives, now they wanted freedom because Britain as usual was being a douche ( exploiting through taxes and all ). but these Americans were originally Europeans and why Britain was not recognizing it as it's expansion rather than a colony ?

2. Why they were being so oppressive to their whites/Better governed people ? (i am sorry if there were many other ethnicity but my small resources always call them Americans and i know that Europeans did occupied majority of it ?) and Americans were basically opposing their dudes maybe ?

3. can you please compare rule of British in India vs America ? it'll be great !

i just cannot get my head around that Indians had National feeling toward this land and hence wanted freedom while American did't had that.

i am scared that this is super offensive question, if it offends anyone i apologize and i don't mean to offend.

The sources I have looked at didn't really have a specific answer, and yet, the Sea People played a crucial role in the bronze age collapse (at least thats what it seems). I would just like to know, who exactly were they, and where did they go?

​

Thank you

[deleted]

I am writing a work about Paris during the reign of king Louis IX. I wonder is there a way i can find out names of actual commoners like bakers, artisans and tavern owners who lived in Paris from roughly 1240 to 1270 ?

I'm sorry if this question has been asked a lot

I initially asked this on a communism subreddit but I believe they have me shadowbanned.

I'm not much of a history buff but I never understood this? Bangladesh was poised to become a valuable asset of the USSR and India to leverage Pakistan (which, to my knowledge was closely aligned with NATO) and yet China took the side of Pakistan?

Does their support of Pakistan come from the 1962 war China had with India, or maybe the sino Soviet split? Or was it from Kissingers political wheeling and dealing?

I'm taking a class right now with a focus on the socio-cultural, geo-political, and intellectual dimensions of Britain and its empire between 1500 and 1830. Our essay needs to fit into the themes of the class which include migration, networks, identities, ethnicity/race, gender, class, health and medicine, legal status, and subject hood. I have some familiarity with British witchcraft but don't know the best way to look into fitting it into the scope of the class. Additionally, I am very unfamiliar with witchcraft in the colonies which could probably be a good lead too.

Any suggestions of where to begin to look?

[deleted]

An immigrant looking to learn the history of America from its infancy to present. Please recommend in chronological order as I have no point of reference.

Hello!

I am in my second term in the graduate program for my Masters in history with and American concentration. My primary area of interest is colonial American and revolutionary era. Already we need to choose our capstone topic and begin research and to create a proposal/defense of said topic. I am considering doing mine on different translations/interpretations/plays of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Toms Cabin as a way to map the reach of American pop culture and display global attitudes on slavery of the time. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what I could do in relation to my interests in early America?

[deleted]

When I was a wee little child in the early 70s, every large organization in America had a department that dealt with employee records, details of hiring & firing, employment verification, complaints, etc. And that department was called "Personnel".

When I got my Ph.D. in 1996 and went out to get my first real job, every large organization still had such a department, but now every single one of them was called "Human Resources".

What drove the change?

I am aware that there were any number of widespread name changes in American society during this period. Many of them were driven by avoiding offense or becoming more inclusive. An obvious example is the change from "fireman" to "firefighter". But this does not explain "personnel" -> "HR". On the contrary, that change would seem to be a move in the more offensive direction (does anyone prefer being a "human resource" to being a "person"?).

Furthermore, the change would have required work. Even big corporations that had been around forever made the switch. Someone would have had to spearhead the movement to switch. People got new titles. Signage was remade. Brochures were reprinted. Org charts were revised. A lot of people apparently thought this change was worth the effort. Even organizations for whom the bottom line is everything thought that such changes were worth spending money on. What made them think that way?